1.4. The difference between sub-element types and sub-elements is not very clear. PVF 2/26/2007

1.4. The difference between sub-element types and sub-elements is not very clear. PVF 2/26/2007

+

+

Add the phrase “not requiring a new record” to “earlier/later title” in the second sentence, to make the sentence read: “For example, for the RDA title element, sub-types are defined for title proper, parallel title, other title information, variant title, earlier/later title not requiring a new record, and key title.” This will help distinguish the element from an earlier/later title that is a separate resource. (See discussion of 2.3.5 in ALA and LC responses to RDA Part I, and the JSC response table.) Randall, ALCTS/SS, 2/26/07

===1.5 Value representations===

===1.5 Value representations===

Revision as of 19:11, 26 February 2007

RDA Scope and Structure: CC:DA Comments

To enter your comments in this click on the [edit] link for the section where you want to comment.

Please have your comments ready to paste into the wiki by first writing them in a text editor, like Microsoft Word or Notepad. Don't keep a page open for more than 5 minutes.

Always log in before editing a section.

Paste in your comments, in rule number order, as follows:

Problem

Solution

Your name/liaison organization

Month/day/year

Never copy and paste over the entire original wiki document.

Deadine for entering comments: February 26, 2007

General comments and introductory paragraph

document utilizes DCMI object model and the <indecs> metadata framework, which are mostly unknown to catalogers and quite difficult to decipher (especially DCMI). Considering that FRBR and FRAD are still challenging for many catalogers, if such language and terminology from DCMI, such as “value strings” or “value representations” etc., are incorporated (introduced) into RDA, it may provide another barrier between the cataloger and the code/RDA and thus hinder its acceptance. Notwithstanding these questions, I personally find the structure (from 2. Structure on) of this outline and its sections in describing the structure of RDA logical, but not always understandable (e.g., sub-element v. sub-element type). PVF 2/26/2007

1. Scope

It would be highly useful if scope addressed to whom RDA is directed, for example, either the primary or secondary target audiences or both. (The exclusion of this audience information to date has led to lack of clarity on a variety of levels, particularly when it is later suggested that various instructions are “out of scope”. It can be argued that some of what has been missing in AACR/RDA is a lack of reference to the other kinds of vocabularies that make up a complete cataloguing record and that by their acknowledgement in various parts of RDA would give some additional credence to use of RDA in those other arenas that the national libraries seem to want to have focusing some attention on RDA.) Suggested additional sentences: L.Jizba 25Feb07
“RDA is primarily intended for use to the library cataloguing community. Depending upon the specific nature of various resource collections, it may also apply to the broader library community and to those in other arenas working on databases similar to library catalogues, such as to:
• librarians developing/cataloguing for repositories of dissertations and or academic research projects or
• librarians developing/cataloguing or metadata files of historic photographs, books, newspapers, articles, etc.
• archivists who may use other rules for details such as DACS yet to whom these RDA rules have some relevance or
others using the DCMI Abstract Model, The <indecs> Metadata Framework, museum staff using COO, and thesauri beyond LCSH such as AAT, etc.” - L.Jizba 25Feb07

1.1 Definitions

Resource

Resource discovery
IDENTIFY — i.e., to confirm[delete "confirm"] determine that the resource described corresponds to matches the resource sought, or to distinguish between two or more resources with
similar characteristics [is this latter section after comma really necessary?]

[This seems to be a circular definition; my underlining]:
Access point control data
Access point control data are data (i.e., value representations) that reflect the
characteristics (i.e., properties) of an entity represented by a controlled access
point

Alternatively: … of an entity represented by a standardized, uniform agent or identifier of a resource used for its retrieval. [or something along these lines]
PVF 2/26/2007

Descriptive data

Access point control data
If new cataloguers or the Dublin Core or other metadata users are to read this, then they need to know up front, and not in a footnote, that “in this context, a controlled access point is a name formulated according to guidelines and instructions in part B of RDA”. Suggested additional text is below. This is important enough for the target audiences to put this information in line with the rest of the text, and to not put it in a footnote. -L.Jizba 25Feb07
In the context of RDA, a controlled access point is a name that is relevant to authorship or to other types of creation responsibility, or to creation associations (e.g a family entity). A controlled access point name is formulated according to guidelines and instructions in part B of RDA. Similarly, while subject terms or subject access points are also points of controlled access, such as those used in library subject cataloging or in various metadata, their formulation is not part of RDA. Instead, such controlled subject access points, whether used or not used in conjunction with RDA controlled access points for names in library cataloguing databases, or in other contexts, are governed and formulated not by RDA, but by various thesauri or controlled vocabularies as selected by cataloging or metadata agency policies. - L.Jizba 25Feb07

1.2 Descriptive data

3rd paragraph: Because RDA will include an appendix for ISBD, data display isn't completely out of scope. Glennan 2/23/07

1.3 Access point control data

It would have been helpful to be able consult FRAD while commenting on this section. (I know it's coming soon, but not before our comment deadline.) Glennan 2/23/07

1st paragraph: Does "item" belong on this list? Glennan 2/23/07

Final paragraph: I assume that author/title relationships are not out of scope (the author would certianly be a controlled access point; I assume the "preferred title" incorporates both the author and the title of the work). I'm sure FRAD clarifies this situation. Glennan 2/23/07

Agree. I think the relationships referred to are things like earlier/later, but still unclear. Scharff, MusLA 2/25/07

K. Glenna wrote: 3rd paragraph: Because RDA will include an appendix for ISBD, data display isn't completely out of scope. Glennan 2/23/07
I agree, and the flat statement “are out of scope” would be better modified since the intended audience for RDA and the many intended uses to which library cataloguers will want to put RDA seem to be still in a state of formulation, because the actual scope of RDA still appears somewhat fuzzy. . Suggested text is below. L.Jizba 25Feb07
Attributes and relationships associated….(e.g., data processing, etc.) are not presently addressed in the main text of RDA. Data display in the ISBD context is addressed in an appendix. L.Jizba 25Feb07

1.4 Elements

1.4. The difference between sub-element types and sub-elements is not very clear. PVF 2/26/2007

Add the phrase “not requiring a new record” to “earlier/later title” in the second sentence, to make the sentence read: “For example, for the RDA title element, sub-types are defined for title proper, parallel title, other title information, variant title, earlier/later title not requiring a new record, and key title.” This will help distinguish the element from an earlier/later title that is a separate resource. (See discussion of 2.3.5 in ALA and LC responses to RDA Part I, and the JSC response table.) Randall, ALCTS/SS, 2/26/07

1.5 Value representations

Label

Quantity

Quality
I have a problem with the use of this term since the attributes listed under it do not measure the quality of the described entity. The fact that the text is in English or the map is in color doesn’t speak to the quality of the entity or its contents. Historically librarians/catalogers have bent over backwards to not make judgments on the quality of the contents of the described entity. Even using Qualities would be better than Quality. MANGAN 2/25/07

I didn't have the problem that Betsy did, but I can understand some confusion. This may be a case where we have to accept other communities' "wonky" language to find common ground. Scharff, MusLA 2/25/07

Type

Role

Identifier

Name

Description

1.6 Value strings

In the final paragraph I don’t understand what is meant by “rich representation”, even going back to the source document. In the i.e. statement is the adjective “marked-up” meant to modify text only or also to modify images, videos, audio, etc., or is it “mark-up text” and all images, videos, audio, etc.? MANGAN 2/25/07

1.7 Application

The 1st paragraph seems to contradict itself: “… general guidelines and instructions that can be applied to any resource exhibiting the characteristic … Supplementary guidelines and instructions provide additional detail … for resources that exhibit characteristics not covered by the general guidelines and instructions.” Why aren’t these supplementary guidelines considered general guidelines that are applied if exhibited? What is the criteria for a guideline to be general, applied if relevant, as opposed to supplementary. MANGAN 2/25/07

2nd paragraph: Are "works" encompassed by the "etc." in the 1st sentence regarding entities represented by a controlled access point? Glennan 2/23/07

1.8 Record structure

Nothing is mentioned about indicating the relationships between elements. There needs to be some method to link the element “statement of responsibility” for an edition to the edition statement and not to the title or to link the scale to the correct coordinates when multiple scale elements and coordinate elements occur in the same record. Both ISBD and MARC21 provide for this linking but this element-to-element relationship isn’t even mentioned in this document. MANGAN 2/25/07

2. Structure

2.1 Part A –Description

I was surprised to see "item" crop up under the 1st two headings below. Glennan 2/23/07

Resource identification

I think "work" should be included under resource identification. Also, there should be a strong explanation as to the rationale for choosing a structured string vs. an unstructured string. Smart 2/26/2007

Carrier

Content

Acquisition and access

Persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with a resource

Related resources

2.2 Part B – Access point control

Access points representing persons

Access points representing families

Access points representing corporate bodies

Access points representing places

This should really be handled as part of the previous paragraph dealing with corporate bodies. Descriptions don’t generally include access points for a physical/geographic place other than for subject access. Place names are used as part of a corporate name representing some part of the jurisdictional government or as a qualifier in an access point to qualify or differentiate between/among multiple persons, families, or corporate bodies represented by the same character string. Place names are also occasionally used to differentiate between multiple serials with the same title. MANGAN 2/25/07

I agree with Betsy. My note on this paragraph was "places to me connote georeferencing i.e. the typical lat/long info associated with place." As the intent of "place" in this context is to disambiguate other access points it should be explained along with those points it is disambiguating. SMART 2/26/2007

Other information used in access point control
Why does other information need its own separate chapter? Can't the additional attributes be explained along with the entities they are associated with? SMART 2/26/2007